Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

Accept Deny

GoGreenNation news

Washington State Vote a Harbinger for Wider Carbon Markets

News Feed
Friday, November 1, 2024

(Reuters) - A ballot initiative to ax Washington state's carbon market would, if passed next week, send an ominous signal to other U.S. states and Canadian regions looking to build markets aimed at cutting emissions that scientists blame for climate change.The carbon market, formed by the state's Climate Commitment Act (CCA), has raised more than $2 billion for programs including transit, wildfire protection, and salmon protection since its 2023 launch.It is supported by Native American tribes and environmental groups, as well as BP, a global energy company preparing for the potential wider adoption of such markets.Hedge fund manager Brian Heywood is leading the initiative in the Nov. 5 elections to repeal it. He blames CCA, which puts emissions limits on about 100 of the state's largest polluters, for spiking Washington's gasoline prices to the highest in the U.S. in mid-2023.Heywood, the millionaire Republican and CEO of Taiyo Pacific Partners, holds rallies for the initiative at gas stations, where he gives drivers money to reduce the cost of fill-ups."The guys that have to drive 45 minutes a day in their 2002 Honda sedans, they're the ones that get crushed, and no one's standing up for them, so I am," Heywood told Reuters.Backers of cap-and-trade carbon markets say they can efficiently tackle carbon emissions by harnessing the power of capitalism.In such markets, the government sets gradually falling limits on carbon pollution. Industry can meet the limits by reducing their emissions through investments in clean energy. If they reduce emissions they can sell allowances to other emitters who choose not to make the efficiency investments.Washington's market may eventually link to similar mechanisms in California and Quebec, which backers say would give industries a broader choice of credits.Luke Sherman, a carbon markets analyst at the consultancy Energy Aspects, said which way Washington votes could influence decisions in states like New York, which has proposed a carbon market to meet its 2050 carbon emissions goals, and in New Jersey and Maryland where some lawmakers support carbon markets.It could also help persuade California and northeastern states in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative to either broaden existing carbon markets to more industries or narrow them."How ambitious they want to be could certainly be influenced by their perception of voter support or rejection of carbon pricing in Washington," Sherman said.Washington state auctions of the allowances also earn revenues that it invests in projects from clean transit to salmon fisheries.Kelsey Nyland, a spokesperson for No On 2117, named after the ballot number, said if the measure passes it would cut billions of dollars in funding hurting "every corner of our state, putting major road and bridge projects addressing congestion, safety and freight mobility at risk of being delayed or even canceled."Community Transit, which serves Puget Sound, said it would lose about $200 million through 2038. Programs that could be hit include bus rapid transit, an efficient service featuring dedicated lanes."The last thing we'd like to cut is service to our customers, but that certainly could happen," said spokesperson Martin Munguia.A poll conducted in October sponsored by The Seattle Times and others showed 48% of respondents oppose the initiative, 30% said "yes" and 22% were undecided.Big fossil fuel companies could help overcome the measure.BP is working to defeat the initiative "because it moves the state backwards on climate action and endangers funding for key transportation infrastructure and other low-carbon projects," a spokesperson said. BP owns Cherry Point, the largest oil refinery in the Pacific Northwest. When asked whether it might oppose the measure because it would make any pollution allowances it owns worthless, BP referred to Washington state rules forbidding the disclosure of details on market positions.Energy Aspects' Sherman said if the measure succeeds, energy companies may have to face new state emissions regulations blunter in nature than carbon pricing."These regulations could be costlier for some emitters than their obligations under the cap-and-invest program," Sherman said.The Western States Petroleum Association has not opposed CCA, but wants changes to avoid fuel price spikes."Regardless of the election results, the program needs some fixes for it to be affordable for consumers and sustainable for the long run," said Jessica Spiegel, vice president, northwest region of WPSA.(Reporting by Timothy Gardner; Editing by Marguerita Choy)Copyright 2024 Thomson Reuters.Photos You Should See - Sept. 2024

By Timothy Gardner(Reuters) - A ballot initiative to ax Washington state's carbon market would, if passed next week, send an ominous signal to...

(Reuters) - A ballot initiative to ax Washington state's carbon market would, if passed next week, send an ominous signal to other U.S. states and Canadian regions looking to build markets aimed at cutting emissions that scientists blame for climate change.

The carbon market, formed by the state's Climate Commitment Act (CCA), has raised more than $2 billion for programs including transit, wildfire protection, and salmon protection since its 2023 launch.

It is supported by Native American tribes and environmental groups, as well as BP, a global energy company preparing for the potential wider adoption of such markets.

Hedge fund manager Brian Heywood is leading the initiative in the Nov. 5 elections to repeal it. He blames CCA, which puts emissions limits on about 100 of the state's largest polluters, for spiking Washington's gasoline prices to the highest in the U.S. in mid-2023.

Heywood, the millionaire Republican and CEO of Taiyo Pacific Partners, holds rallies for the initiative at gas stations, where he gives drivers money to reduce the cost of fill-ups.

"The guys that have to drive 45 minutes a day in their 2002 Honda sedans, they're the ones that get crushed, and no one's standing up for them, so I am," Heywood told Reuters.

Backers of cap-and-trade carbon markets say they can efficiently tackle carbon emissions by harnessing the power of capitalism.

In such markets, the government sets gradually falling limits on carbon pollution. Industry can meet the limits by reducing their emissions through investments in clean energy. If they reduce emissions they can sell allowances to other emitters who choose not to make the efficiency investments.

Washington's market may eventually link to similar mechanisms in California and Quebec, which backers say would give industries a broader choice of credits.

Luke Sherman, a carbon markets analyst at the consultancy Energy Aspects, said which way Washington votes could influence decisions in states like New York, which has proposed a carbon market to meet its 2050 carbon emissions goals, and in New Jersey and Maryland where some lawmakers support carbon markets.

It could also help persuade California and northeastern states in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative to either broaden existing carbon markets to more industries or narrow them.

"How ambitious they want to be could certainly be influenced by their perception of voter support or rejection of carbon pricing in Washington," Sherman said.

Washington state auctions of the allowances also earn revenues that it invests in projects from clean transit to salmon fisheries.

Kelsey Nyland, a spokesperson for No On 2117, named after the ballot number, said if the measure passes it would cut billions of dollars in funding hurting "every corner of our state, putting major road and bridge projects addressing congestion, safety and freight mobility at risk of being delayed or even canceled."

Community Transit, which serves Puget Sound, said it would lose about $200 million through 2038. Programs that could be hit include bus rapid transit, an efficient service featuring dedicated lanes.

"The last thing we'd like to cut is service to our customers, but that certainly could happen," said spokesperson Martin Munguia.

A poll conducted in October sponsored by The Seattle Times and others showed 48% of respondents oppose the initiative, 30% said "yes" and 22% were undecided.

Big fossil fuel companies could help overcome the measure.

BP is working to defeat the initiative "because it moves the state backwards on climate action and endangers funding for key transportation infrastructure and other low-carbon projects," a spokesperson said. 

BP owns Cherry Point, the largest oil refinery in the Pacific Northwest. When asked whether it might oppose the measure because it would make any pollution allowances it owns worthless, BP referred to Washington state rules forbidding the disclosure of details on market positions.

Energy Aspects' Sherman said if the measure succeeds, energy companies may have to face new state emissions regulations blunter in nature than carbon pricing.

"These regulations could be costlier for some emitters than their obligations under the cap-and-invest program," Sherman said.

The Western States Petroleum Association has not opposed CCA, but wants changes to avoid fuel price spikes.

"Regardless of the election results, the program needs some fixes for it to be affordable for consumers and sustainable for the long run," said Jessica Spiegel, vice president, northwest region of WPSA.

(Reporting by Timothy Gardner; Editing by Marguerita Choy)

Copyright 2024 Thomson Reuters.

Photos You Should See - Sept. 2024

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Related News

EPA implements climate law’s methane fee for oil and gas companies

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on Tuesday issued a final rule that implements a charge for oil and gas companies that release too much of the planet-warming gas methane. The fee was passed as part of 2022’s Inflation Reduction Act, Democrats' climate, tax and healthcare bill.  Methane is a planet-warming pollutant that is about 28...

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on Tuesday issued a final rule that implements a charge for oil and gas companies that release too much of the planet-warming gas methane. The fee was passed as part of 2022’s Inflation Reduction Act, Democrats' climate, tax and healthcare bill.  Methane is a planet-warming pollutant that is about 28 times as powerful as carbon dioxide. Oil and gas production is one major source of methane emissions because methane — which is the main component of natural gas — is sometimes released or burned during that process.  Under the 2022 law, companies that emit methane at levels equivalent to 25,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide each year have to pay for their excess emissions. That fee is $900 per metric ton this year, $1,200 for emissions next year and $1,500 for emissions the following year. Much of this is set out in the law, and the EPA’s rule details how the charge will be implemented.  The EPA estimates that the program will prevent a total of 1.2 million metric tons of methane from entering the atmosphere, with climate gains equivalent to taking nearly 8 million gas-powered cars off the road for a year It estimates that it will cost the industry $2.2 billion to comply.  This program could be scrapped by Congress in the months ahead. It was part of a law that passed by a process called budget reconciliation, which allows certain legislation to evade the filibuster — only requiring 50 votes in the Senate. It passed the House and Senate without a single Republican vote. Now that the GOP has secured a trifecta, Republicans could pursue their own reconciliation bill that eliminates the program.  Facilities in compliance with the recently finalized Clean Air Act standards for oil and gas operations would be exempt from the charge after certain criteria set by Congress are met.

Climate
Health

For Nearly a Decade, Climate Talks Have Been Hashing Out So-Called Article 6. but What Is It?

After nearly a decade of negotiations, leaders during the United Nations climate conference’s first day decided on some of the finer points of much-debated sticking point aimed at cutting planet-warming emissions from coal, oil and gas

BAKU, Azerbaijan (AP) — After nearly a decade of negotiations, leaders during the United Nations climate conference's first day decided on some of the finer points of much-debated sticking point aimed at cutting planet-warming emissions from coal, oil and gas. Known as Article 6, it was set up as part of the 2015 Paris Agreement to help nations work together to reduce climate-causing pollution. Part of that was a system of carbon credits, allowing nations to put planet-warming gasses in the air if they offset emissions elsewhere. But the gaveling through of Article 6 late Monday was criticized by climate justice groups, who said carbon markets allow major polluters to keep emitting at the expense of people and the environment. COP29, as this year’s summit is known, has brought together world leaders to discuss ways to limit and adapt to the climate crisis. Scientists agree that the warming of the atmosphere caused primarily by human-burned fossil fuels is fueling deadlier and increasingly catastrophic droughts, flooding, hurricanes and heat.Here's a look at Article 6 and the carbon credits system it aims to implement. Article 6 first made an appearance at the Paris climate talks in 2015, where world leaders agreed to try to keep global warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) from pre-industrial levels.Its aim is to outline how countries and companies can trade emissions reductions to remove and stop more carbon pollution reaching the atmosphere. The idea is to set up carbon trading markets, allowing higher polluters to offset some of the pollution they produce by buying carbon credits from less polluting countries.Article 6 offers two ways for countries to do this. The first is for two nations to set their own rules and standards for carbon credit trades. Some countries are already signing deals to do this, including Singapore with the Philippines, Costa Rica and Sri Lanka, Switzerland with Ghana, Peru and Ukraine, among others. The second option creates an international, U.N.-governed market that anyone can purchase credits through. Isa Mulder, an expert on global carbon markets with the research group Carbon Market Watch, said the idea behind Article 6 is for countries to find the cheapest way to cut emissions. By trading carbon credits, it makes cutting global pollution cheaper and more efficient. But Article 6 is contentious, leading to years of delays. At COP28, negotiations crumbled after disagreements on transparency, rules on credits that could be traded, and what makes a good carbon removal credit. United Nations secretary-general Antonio Guterres urged negotiators to “agree to rules for fair, effective carbon markets” and “leave no space for greenwashing or land-grabbing.”The hope of Article 6 is that it incentivizes countries to collaborate to reach their climate goals. Countries could generate carbon credits based on projects aimed to meet their own climate goals, such as protecting existing forests from development or shutting coal-fired plants.Private-sector players or other high carbon polluter countries could then buy the credits, which would allow them to emit a certain amount of carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gas. Heavy-polluting companies would be important customers.Each credit would equal a ton of CO2 or the equivalent of other greenhouse gases that can be reduced in the air, sequestered, or avoided by using green energies instead.Money from the credits generated would go to local projects. The per-ton price of carbon would fluctuate in the market, meaning that the higher it rises, the more green projects could fetch through new credits generated.Under carbon markets, countries that lower their emissions can sell carbon credits. Countries that sell credits can use them for clean energy projects, such as installing solar panels or electrifying public transportation systems. But critics question whether it will be effective and worry it could lead to similar problems seen with the Kyoto Protocol, a 1997 pact for developed nations to reduce their heat-trapping gas emissions to 1990 levels and below. The deal was dealt a hammer blow when the then U.S. administration withdrew from it."There’s a lot of concerns about whether that credit actually represents what it stands for,” said Mulder from Carbon Market Watch. What could happen at Baku climate talks? Monday's decision signaled early momentum on establishing Article 6, which the COP29 presidency said it would prioritize this year. But leaders still need to agree on other sections of the issue, including rules on two-nation carbon credit trading and the final details of the international, U.N.-governed market. Once finalized, Article 6 could reduce the cost of implementing national climate plans by $250 billion annually according to U.N. estimates. The COP29 presidency will then encourage countries to participate in carbon trading. On Monday, COP29 President Mukhtar Babayev said Article 6 “will be a game-changing tool to direct resources to the developing world.”But concerns remain about how it will work, given how it was developed.“Communities' consent and ownership over these initiatives are not just essential, but also a matter of respect and inclusion,” said David Nicholson, chief climate officer at Mercy Corps, a nonprofit that works on poverty, climate and other issues. "We are concerned that the agreement lacks adequate protections to human rights and undermines the goals of the Paris Agreement, rather than supporting them. If these concerns aren’t addressed, the decision could allow carbon trading to take the place of genuine, much-needed climate finance commitments,” Nicholson added.AP Science writer Seth Borenstein contributed to this report. Pineda reported from Los Angeles.The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See - Sept. 2024

Climate
CO2
Energy

Climate scores big wins in ballot measures across US West

Voters across the U.S. West granted efforts to combat climate change resounding wins in state- and local-level ballot measures, amid expectations that the incoming Trump administration will roll back federal environmental protections. California Voters in the Golden State voted in favor of a $10 billion climate resilience bond, which materialized following significant cuts to environmental initiatives in the 2024-25...

Voters across the U.S. West granted efforts to combat climate change resounding wins in state- and local-level ballot measures, amid expectations that the incoming Trump administration will roll back federal environmental protections. California Voters in the Golden State voted in favor of a $10 billion climate resilience bond, which materialized following significant cuts to environmental initiatives in the 2024-25 state budget. California, a national leader on climate issues, has set ambitious emissions reduction targets while facing climate-driven impacts such as extreme weather, drought and wildfires. But the state has been contending with a $46.8 billion shortfall, which legislators addressed by cutting budget allocations in various sectors. The ballot initiative, Proposition 4, authorizes bonds for safe drinking water, wildfire prevention and the protection of communities and lands from climate threats. Officials anticipate that the bonds will increase state costs by about $400 million annually during the 40-year repayment period. The bond will dedicate 40 percent of the $10 billion at minimum toward disadvantaged communities. "Californians are taking charge and doubling down on climate action to protect themselves and build a more resilient future while preserving what makes our state special," Liz Forsburg Pardi, California policy director for The Nature Conservancy, said in a statement. Colorado Coloradans granted their approval for Proposition JJ, which will loosen restrictions on the amount of sports betting tax revenues that the state can use for water projects. Such revenues in the Centennial State are typically used for watershed health projects, water storage needs, conservation and land use, drought planning, water efficiency improvements and water education, according to the proposition. Prior to the vote, the state needed to refund casinos and sports betting operators for tax revenues that exceeded $29 million annually. The influx of funds from sports betting into water projects began after voters approved Proposition DD in 2019 — authorizing a 10 percent tax on the net proceeds of sports betting in casinos. The Colorado Water Trust, which said it does not usually take a position on political issues, endorsed Proposition JJ as "a win for rivers, a win for farmers and a win for cities — a win for Colorado." Washington Voters in Washington State took decisive action against a ballot measure that sought to repeal the state's cornerstone Climate Commitment Act. Washingtonians rejected Initiative 2117, which aimed to eliminate most provisions of the legislation — approved by state lawmakers in 2021.  Had the measure passed, it would have prohibited state agencies from imposing any kind of carbon tax credit, including so-called "cap and trade" programs — or those that require polluters to purchase greenhouse gas allowances and offsets. The ballot initiative also would have reduced funding for investments in renewable energy, transportation, clean air, conservation and emissions reduction efforts. Hawaii On a local level, residents of Hawaii's capital approved amendments to the Honolulu City Charter that included the establishment of a Climate Resiliency Fund. The fund will take half a percent of the city's property tax revenues and deposit that money in a pool dedicated to climate initiatives, according to the Honolulu Elections Division. These resources, per the charter, will "support initiatives and projects aimed at mitigating the impacts of climate change, enhancing the resilience of the city’s infrastructure and communities and promoting sustainable practices."

Climate
Conservation
Energy

Authoritarian fossil fuel states keep hosting climate conferences – how do these regimes operate and what do they want?

The succession of authoritarian fossil fuel producers hosting international climate negotiations is a concern. We must pay attention to political influences on the talks and beware of greenwashing.

Halit Sadik, ShutterstockFor the third year in a row, the United Nations Climate Change Conference will be hosted by an authoritarian state that sells fossil fuels. This week the 29th “conference of the parties”, COP29, is being held in Baku, Azerbaijan. It follows COP28 in Dubai, the United Arab Emirates last year and COP27 in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt the year before that. It’s concerning that a succession of authoritarian and fossil fuel-rich states have been selected to host international climate negotiations. It means we must pay extra attention to political influences on the talks and beware of greenwashing by the hosts. The domestic politics of these states also shapes global supply chains of fossil fuels and critical minerals. This in turn directly affects Australia’s trade, economy and foreign policies. There are now more authoritarian and hybrid regimes globally than there are democracies. So some basic understanding of how authoritarian states respond to climate change matters, for Australia and the rest of the world. What is an authoritarian state and why should we care? Power in authoritarian states is concentrated in the hands of a single ruler or group of elites. People under authoritarian rule lack many basic human rights, and risk punishment for speaking out against the political regime. Rule of law and political institutions are weak, so abuse of power can go unchecked. Not all authoritarian states are fossil fuel producers, although many are. Some also supply critical minerals for electric vehicles and renewable energy. China dominates global critical minerals supply chains and electric vehicle manufacturing. Russia remains one of the largest fossil fuels producers and exporters, despite sanctions since 2022. It is also using revenues from these exports to continue its war in Ukraine. Most of the major oil, coal and gas producers in the Middle East and Central and Southeast Asia are non-democracies or hybrid autocracies. UAE lifted oil production after hosting COP28. Indonesia, considered “partly free”, is the world’s largest coal exporter. Despite having signed the Paris Agreement, the Indonesian government recently approved close to one billion tonnes of coal mining. Domestic coal consumption and export is expected to rise. What is at stake at COP29? At COP29, countries are expected to announce stronger national climate commitments. This is essential for limiting global temperature rise to 1.5°C and achieving net-zero emissions by mid-century. It is hoped more concrete steps will also be taken towards providing financial support to developing countries struggling with the energy transition. In previous years, authoritarian states have been able to block or undermine progress at international climate negotiations. Expect to see more of this at COP29. China’s cautious approach to phasing out coal has affected COP negotiations in the past. Even after COP28, where a roadmap to transition away from fossil fuel was agreed, coal remains crucial to China’s economy. At COP27 in Egypt, Russian energy lobbyists were permitted to attend even after the invasion of Ukraine. They met with heads of states and energy ministers from Africa, Asia and the rest of the world. Russia will likely use COP29 to promote its own agenda, including its nuclear export industry. Since the war began, Russia has sought to frame Western-led cooperation on climate as a form of neo-colonialism designed to undermine its economy and others like it. The mere fact COP29 is being held in Azerbaijan may be a consequence of Russian intervention. Russia reportedly opposed COP29 being held in Bulgaria after the European Union condemned the invasion of Ukraine and imposed sanctions. Climate politics in autocracies Finally, evidence suggests as climate change intensifies, authoritarianism could gain legitimacy over liberal democratic norms, for several reasons. First, authoritarian states can provide effective short-term disaster response and relief. The central authorities in these states can mobilise considerable human and material resources without many institutional checks and balances. Second, authoritarian states can introduce large-scale green energy technologies, such as solar, wind, hydro and nuclear, using substantial government funding. This has happened in China and many other states, including Laos, Vietnam, and Morocco. In doing so, authoritarian states can portray themselves as more capable than democracies. Finally, following the demise of fossil fuel-related industries, functioning authoritarian states can manage massive job losses and suppress social resentment in ways democratic governments do not. Challenges lie ahead Long-standing democracies such as the United States and Australia have been bogged down in the complex politics around climate and energy transition. This has led to scientific evidence being questioned, crackdowns on environmental activism, and restrictions on media freedom. We need to make sure addressing climate change doesn’t undermine democratic principles. What’s more, authoritarian and fossil fuel rich states have actively funded climate denial in democratic societies. For example, Russia was found to be promoting anti-climate misinformation on social media. As far as China goes, the global superpower is extending its geopolitical influence by helping developing countries access cheap renewable energy technologies from non-Western sources. This challenges the leading role of the US and the West in the field of international cooperation on climate change. As COP29 gets underway, the potential for authoritarian states to shape the outcomes remains strong. Understanding how these regimes work, and what they want, is vital as they affect global cooperation on climate change. The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Climate
Activism
Government

California air regulators approve controversial standards that could affect gas prices

California regulators have approved plans to strengthen the state's carbon reduction standards — a move that opponents fear could drive up gasoline prices. The decision, which occurred following a 12-hour meeting on Friday, involves amendments to California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard and serves to decrease petroleum dependency and achieve air quality gains. Liane Randolph, chair of the...

California regulators have approved plans to strengthen the state's carbon reduction standards — a move that opponents fear could drive up gasoline prices. The decision, which occurred following a 12-hour meeting on Friday, involves amendments to California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard and serves to decrease petroleum dependency and achieve air quality gains. Liane Randolph, chair of the California Air Resources Board (CARB), praised the amendments in a Friday statement for prioritizing both environmental and health concerns and "ensuring that low-carbon options are available as the state continues to work toward a zero-emissions future.” The approval, she continued, increases fuel choices "beyond petroleum, provides a roadmap for cleaner air, and leverages private sector investment and federal incentives to spur innovation to address climate change and pollution.” Leading up to Friday's vote, opponents of the new amendments voiced fears that tightening the rules would cause a sharp rise in gasoline prices. California's Republican representatives in Congress sent a letter to CARB in the weeks before, urging the agency to delay the decision. They argued that the changes “would create a hidden 47 cent per gallon fee on California drivers every time they go to the pump in 2025.” The writers were citing assessments from CARB’s September 2023 regulatory impact report, although the agency had backtracked on those estimates. A statement issued by CARB after the vote stressed that third party commodities experts have shown that the current standard's pass-through to customers is about $0.10 per gallon of gasoline. First implemented in 2011, the Low Carbon Fuel Standard requires fuel producers to stay below certain carbon intensity thresholds — either by using lower-carbon resources themselves or by acquiring credits from industries that do so. The amendments passed late on Friday focus on “increasing the stringency of the program to more aggressively decarbonize fuels.” That aggressive decarbonization will involve incentivizing more production of clean fuels, such as low-carbon hydrogen, as well as decreasing methane emissions and integrating biologically sourced methane into the transportation sector. The changes will also tighten restrictions on crop-based fuels, with the goal of preventing deforestation and other potentially negative impacts. Alongside red-leaning politicians and oil industry stakeholders, climate groups have also expressed their dissatisfaction with the amendments — although for different reasons. Adrian Martinez, deputy managing attorney of Earthjustice, described the new standard in a statement as "a failed policy," adding that "the communities most impacted by air pollution in California will be the ones breathing the price for it." "Most of the program’s billions will go to combustion fuels, so there is no question that this approach is dragging California backwards," Martinez said.

Climate
Forests
Health

Suggested Viewing

LEAVES

An academic woman in Texas becomes concerned when a massive red oak in her backyard seems to be ailing, though she isn’t sure why it bothers her so much. At the same time, in her small cottage, her attention to her work is distracted by news reports she sees and hears. They tell in graphic terms of the out-of-control forest fires up and down the West Coast. Her attention is further pulled in the direction of other stories about the worsening conditions of the world’s rainforests which she discovers are disappearing at the astounding rate of 200,000 acres a day. Suddenly such stories are all she seems to hear and see on the radio or television or on her computer. But when she hears/sees a science report about how trees actually communicate with each other, she begins to realize there may be a connection between her tree and what she is learning from the news. She begins to recall a strong connection she herself has with that tree and allows that connection to regrow…..

Pollution
Forests
Inspirational

We Trees

Ever wonder what trees think of us now that we have created a climate disaster? This 2-minute film answers that question. As Bill McKibben recently tweeted about the film, “Who speaks for trees? In this short and elegant video, the trees themselves.” It has been screened at Green Fest (Serbia), The Colorado Environmental Film Festival, The Wildlife Conservation Film Festival and Winner of Merit at the Nature Without Borders Film Festival.

Forests
Chemicals
Climate

Sustainable Living with Patrick Lang

A day in the life of Patrick Lang living a sustainable life in Malibu… filmed before his home and community were consumed by fire in the fall of 2018.

Sustainable
Land Use
Solutions

THE WATER WILL TAKE US

This film tells the story of the victims of the flood of 2019 in Iran, which happened in the three provinces of North, Central and South of the country and left a lot of damages. The main narrators are three women who reveal the causes of this incident and mismanagements and tell the story of the people who were left to fend for themselves during the flood and after.

Water
Social Justice
Climate

Talking Trees

Yes, trees can talk. They communicate through their roots. Please listen to what they have to say in this short film.

Forests
Extinction
Climate

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.